Talks needed to resolve concerns about qualifications framework

Is the TQF really complicated?

The Office of Higher Education Commission (Ohec) has designed the TQF as a measure to evaluate the quality of programmes available at universities using indicators that are on par with international standards.

To the Ohec, the TQF aims to ensure that universities offer quality higher educational services and that Thai universities can be easily compared to educational institutes elsewhere.

To hundreds of university lecturers, the TQF has been a big burden that will adversely affect their teaching. The TQF requires lots of form filling to a point that the lecturers feel they won't have time to prepare classes. They have also wondered if the Ohec will really read what they write on the forms given that the information required is massive. Does the commission have adequate qualified staff to review the information and make a fair evaluation?

Moreover, critics have pointed out that by enforcing the TQF, the Ohec seems to think that there is the "OneSizeFitsAll" solution.

Dr Pipop Udon said universities like Chulalongkorn, Thammasat and Kasetsart were initially established to serve as "wells of knowledge" for the country in different areas. He lamented that some key agencies over time were forcing all these institutes to adopt standards and offer similar things.

"Why does a university in Songkhla and a university in Ubon Ratchathani have to use the same curriculum? Why do we have to value similarities much more than differences? Why don't we encourage educational differentiation for intellectual growth?" he asked.

Assoc Prof Kritaya Archavanitkul, deputy director of the Mahidol University's Institute for Population and Social Research, also complained that the TQF reflected a quantitative focus.

In the end, Pipop said the TQF might end up being a rubber stamp for poor quality institutes to go ahead with the "Pay All Tuition Fees and Graduation is Guaranteed" because they could do the paperwork to pass the criteria without giving a damn about the real quality.

Kritaya felt the TQF was redundant given that the universities' quality was already subject to self assessment reports (SAR) and evaluations by the Office for National Education Standards and Quality Assessment.

"The Ohec should trust university councils regarding the SAR," she said.

She urged the Ohec to let the council and lecturers of each university handle the assessments because they knew best which indicators should be used for their context.

"Each institute has different strengths," she said.

Kritaya also felt that the world university ranking was already in place to judge a good Thai university's standard, and thus the TQF was not needed.

Assoc Prof Paitoon Sinlarat, Dhurakij Pundit University's vice president for Research and Academic Services, however, insisted that the TQF was necessary because most foreign countries had worked on the standards for their highereducational institutes too. He felt all Thai universities would benefit from the TQF especially after the Asean Economic Community starts in 2015. Paitoon sits on the Ohecappointed committee on TQF promotion.

Supporters and opponents of the TQF have many reasons to back their stances. Therefore, it is extremely necessary for relevant parties to have serious discussions because the quality of Thailand's highereducational services is at stake.

It doesn't matter if the TQF is fully implemented or not in the future, Thailand's universities need to have clearcut measures to guarantee that they deliver good services for the benefit of their students, graduates and Thai society.

The key point, therefore, is not about the TQF but which measure should be used to guarantee great services.

It's time all relevant parties have serious discussions and pick one measure that is well and efficiently designed. The great higher educational services mean a lot to Thailand's future.

Chularat Saengpassa

The Nation

[email protected]